SWFs play important role in Arctic

A giant piece of Ice breaks off the Perito Moreno Glacier in Patagonia, Argentina

Sovereign wealth funds can play an important role in investing sustainably in the Arctic region, and warding off the impact of a looming natural disaster, according to the IMF’s Udaibir Das.

The economic cost from natural disasters is a 2 to 4 per cent decline in GDP according to Udaibir Das, assistant director and advisor of the monetary and capital markets department at the IMF, speaking at the International Forum of Sovereign Wealth Funds in Alaska about the impact of a “melting Arctic”.

The IMF forecasts the incidents of natural disasters is increasing, and a broader socioeconomic approach is needed to manage that.

“We want ESG embedded in the approach to investing in the region,” Das said. “We are very worried about climate and this should be the responsibilities of the states in the Arctic.”

Das said a melting Arctic may be viewed by some as a climate change a boon, in a reference to allowing a passageway for boats to pass through.

“But that’s a view if you only see revenues and returns. From a natural disaster point of view it is a threat and from a macro-economic view it’s looking disastrous.”

Sponsored Content

Das said the IMF forecasts that a 1 per cent increase in temperature for countries with an average temperature above 25 degrees will result in an output loss of 1.5 per cent and it would take seven to 10 years to overcome that. 

There are eight countries that have a geographical stake in the Arctic – Alaska (United States), Finland, Greenland (Denmark), Iceland, Canada, Norway, Russia and Sweden – but there Das said there are another 13 non-Arctic countries, including China, which “have come up with a map of their own”.

“We need a more collective socio-economic view of the region, it’s not just about making way for boats to go through, this needs a more systematic solution to be sustainable. It’s more than just melting ice and need good analysis of socioeconomic impacts. That’s why this should be on the global agenda, not just left to the Arctic Council to work out,” he said.

“We need to lift the Arctic to something more significant then SWFs can play a role in sustainable finance and investing. ESG is a huge factor in this region because of the delirious effect.”

“There’s a lot that SWFs can do. But before we do anything, we at an international level have to ensure that the region comes up for sustainable investing and development and that cross border flows remain open.”

Das, who until recently managed the IMF’s Financial Sector Assessment Program and the development of fund policies and tools for systemic risk analysis and stress testing, was speaking on a panel with General David Petraeus, former director of the CIA and now chair of the KKR Global Institute.

Petraeus said that the big issue that looms over the Arctic is the same as those that involve multilateral discussions, and that is whether the US wants to allow multilateral organisations or negotiations.

“There is a US belief that we do better in bi-lateral negotiations. The most recent meeting of the Arctic Council was not allowed to issue a communique because the US would not agree to it, same with G7. I don’t want to imply a disagreement with that, but US has to have a forthright conversation with itself as to whether it will enable such organisations. The US will be a determinant on a lot of these issues,” he said.

“We need to build on what the common objectives are, and get some actual agreement and how it will be enforced.”

Leave a Comment

GIC evolves TPA in investment framework overhaul centred on economic drivers and flexibility

GIC evolves TPA in investment framework overhaul centred on economic drivers and flexibility

GIC has further refined its total portfolio approach by moving to a strategic portfolio focused on underlying factors that drive returns. Split between equities, fixed income and real assets, the revision means the fund can move more easily between private and public exposures and nimbly between asset classes.

Sort content by

LGPS Central doubles in size; looks to add more alternatives

In a rare interview, Jayne Atkinson, chief investment officer of the £100 billion ($132 billion) UK pool LGPS Central, reveals the plan to scale up its offering after almost doubling its assets under management, including expanding alternatives to new allocations in hedge funds, diversified growth funds and insurance-linked securities.

NBIM dethrones GPIF to become the world’s largest asset owner

Norway’s sovereign wealth fund is now the world’s largest asset owner according to the Thinking Ahead Institute's annual Asset Owner 100 report, which also outlines the similarities and challenges among top capital allocators globally. 

Sweden’s AP2 and AP6 conflict over PE investments

The Swedish government’s plans to streamline the country’s pension system and merge the $8 billion buffer fund AP6 with its larger and more diversified sibling, the $48 billion AP2, have hit a bump in the road. Major points of contention include AP6's large private equity exposures and staff integration. 

Iceland’s pension funds: Consolidation continues but size of sector a worry

Merger mania continues to grip Iceland’s pension sector, but economies of scale and greater efficiency don't solve the problem of the size of an industry now larger than the country's banking system and insurance sector combined, and more than sufficient to buy all listed investments.

CalPERS bets on outperformance from growing climate allocation

CalPERS' Peter Cashion tells Top1000funds.com how the pension fund's strategy to allocate to climate mitigation, transition and adaptation strategies is allowing it to access an untapped corner of the US market where many investors have retreated because of the policy environment.

Climate politics: BlackRock hits back at NYC Comptroller

The skirmish between the New York City Comptroller and BlackRock over climate alignment of the city’s public pension funds – a fight worth a $42 billion mandate to BlackRock – highlights the complexity and impracticality of aligning climate expectations, reporting requirements and business imperatives.

Previous